Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EAs press board over REC work limits and outsourcing; resident alleges referendum materials used outdated figures
Summary
In public comment the board heard pleas from a district EA about limits on REC work after 40 hours and possible outsourcing; a resident presented screenshots he said showed the district used outdated per‑pupil revenue figures during referendum engagement sessions and questioned the integrity of public outreach.
During the public‑comment portion of the March 9 meeting two speakers raised concerns the board may address in follow up.
Sandy Lugage, who identified herself as an EA in the district, a REC department employee and a WAWM parent, described being told she may no longer work REC roles once she reaches 40 hours in her EA position because of overtime eligibility concerns. Lugage said she had already been told she could no longer work family events, community events or building supervision, and that the prospect of the REC program being outsourced was not clearly communicated to staff; she said she first heard of outsourcing being discussed at the previous board meeting and later learned that RFPs had been submitted.
"Because recent changes affecting EA participation in REC programs and the possible outsourcing of action could have significant impacts on staff, students, and families," Lugage said, she and other affected employees sought transparent communication and inclusion in decision‑making.
John Mulling, a resident who identified himself during public comment, said the district displayed an FAQ screenshot during four referendum engagement sessions that listed a per‑pupil figure he said was from 2022–23 and therefore outdated for the 2024–25 budget context. Mulling said the error changed the per‑pupil number substantially and asked whether the public would have voted differently had up‑to‑date information been shown. He described the presentations as either "complete incompetence or deliberately in order to pass the referendum."
The board did not issue immediate corrections during the meeting; administration said earlier in the session that financial modeling for the compensation proposal used updated data and that staff had sent employment‑verification letters to staff for accuracy. Superintendent Dr. Robinson acknowledged the need to handle legal, staffing and budget considerations responsibly and said staff would provide follow up as appropriate.
Next steps: both concerns were raised publicly and may prompt administrative follow up; the superintendent indicated staff may provide follow‑up at the next regular board meeting.
